Intel s Localization BUS Initiative To XLIFF or not to XLIFF. Loïc Dufresne de Virel Localization Strategist

Transcription

1 Intel s Localization BUS Initiative To XLIFF or not to XLIFF Loïc Dufresne de Virel Localization Strategist Intel Information Technology

2 DISCLAIMERS I m presenting here what we are doing Still a work in progress I don t pretend we have solved all our problems and I don t pretend I have the answers to all your questions ;-) Some of our solutions are specific to our environment, but clearly we re not alone in this journey A mention of a 3 rd party provider doesn t constitute an endorsement from Intel Intel Information Technology 2

3 Where it all started Proliferation of point-to-point solutions No input from localization team, purely reactive Duplication of efforts Lack of scalability and consistency Confusion among users (PM, translator, reviewer, etc.) and poor UX A maintenance nightmare Intel Information Technology

4 Our initial vision Localization Enterprise Bus Connect many CMS and source control systems to many Localization tools Automate and Integrate for TTM and ROI Set up recurring tasks to automatically detect, collect, and forward changed content to translation tools. Web Portal + Documented API Software Factory Integration CMS #1 CMS #2 Stakeholders / Beneficiaries: All business units, regardless of their choice of content management system Intel Information Technology

5 An Early Rendering (Courtesy of CNGL ADAPT) Intel Information Technology 5

6 It s All About Standards CMIS 1.1 Content Management Interoperability Services CMIS servers and clients for compliance and abstraction + ITS 2.0 on the CMS side ITS 2.0 serves as the bridge between [monolingual] content and bitext XLIFF.2.0, and [XLIFF ITS 2.0 =] XLIFF 2.1 And About Understanding Your Environment Intel Information Technology 6

7 Our Existing Environment Intel Information Technology

8 Our Proposed Solution Intel Information Technology

9 Where Does XLIFF Fit Into This? Intel Information Technology 9

10 XLIFF As Canonical Data Model An XLIFF 2.x file is the basic payload token for a bilingual project This drives a few Architectural and Functional Requirements, such as: BUS shall have XLIFF validation service BUS shall have XLIFF extractor/merger service Failure to validate XLIFF payload at any step shall be handled with canonical exception handling patterns The data model shall contain a simplified bidirectional mapping between XLIFF 2.x and XLIFF 1.2 Intel Information Technology 10

11 XLIFF and the ESB Message Structure Intel Information Technology 11

12 Challenge #1: Converting all Incoming Content to XLIFF 2.x If possible, leverage export capabilities of CMS / SCR to XLIFF Convert known formats to XLIFF (commercial-grade converters) Not required at that stage to properly segment the content Conversion is equivalent to a text extraction might be handled via default TMS as first L10n transformation Difficult to accept philosophically but technically useful Intel Information Technology 12

13 Use Case #1: Supporting In-Context Preview A very basic requirement that is often overlooked by tool vendors Still need to iron this one out conceptually simple, technically challenging Maintain mapping between source format and XLIFF at all time, allowing for a call to a preview capability Need to be able to rebuild the target file at multiple stages during the translation process L10N BUS would support branching out from specific stages in current workflow to generate preview of translated page Currently a major limitation on SDL TMS as CTA only supports one trip back to CMS Intel Information Technology 13

14 Use Case #2: Capturing Changes Made in CMS Intel Information Technology 14

15 Use Case #3: Sending Payload through Multiple L10N Transformations Typical use case: 1. Run through first TMS, segmenting at paragraph level to extract in-context matches (high quality / high reliability) 2. Run through second TMS, segmenting at sentence level to increase TM leverage 3. Run new segments through MT 4. Run file through TMS for final review (post-edit) 5. Offer in context review to final in-country approver Update status of individual XLIFF elements (TUs) as needed / relevant. Any change, no matter where made, gets captured in XLIFF store Intel Information Technology 15

16 Challenge #2: Build versus Buy ROI of such a complex solution is difficult to establish Focus is on eliminating major pain points for our stakeholders, time-to-market, and efficiency Need to evaluate potential solution from 3 rd parties against our set of requirements / features We might consider a solution that meets 80% of our requirements and collaborate with a 3 rd party provider to develop the remaining 20% Very few examples in the industry of companies having successfully built and deployed their own L10N BUS solution Intel Information Technology 16

17 In Conclusion We recently embarked on a major project that [we hope] will greatly improve the provision of L10N services at Intel. We are partnering with CNGL/ADAPT to design the data model and architecture for a modular, extensible, vendor-agnostic, and future-proof I18n/L10n service bus. The proposed data model and the overall bus architecture benefit from the use of a metadata-rich message (workflow token) format that is largely informed by recent standards such as CMIS 1.1, ITS 2.0, XLIFF.2.0, and XLIFF 2.1. Modularity of the above-mentioned standards offers a robust match for a generalized and abstracted BPM bus solution connecting a number of messaging brokers, grouping Content Management Systems, Code Control Repositories, and I18n/L10n services that cover code scanning, pseudo-translation, machine translation, human translation, etc. Intel Information Technology 17

18 Why Did I Share All This With You Today? I wanted to thank you for contributing to standards such as XLIFF I wanted to encourage tool providers to adopt / support XLIFF I obviously need all the help I can get ;-) Intel Information Technology 18